MEDIA DISHONESTY -- THE WP, RICHARD COHEN


I have recently written, with concern about the Libyan massacre cover-up, that the media are "in violation of journalistic ethics and standards." Charles Krauthammer writes, with more credibility than I have, that they commit "journalistic malpractice." The Washington Post's endorsement of Obama and two recent columns by Richard Cohen epitomize that phenomenon. Here is a letter I submitted today to The Daily Press, a Tribune paper.  

In a recent column Richard Cohen asked, “could a worse candidate than Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain” have run for president? While not a supporter of either, I rebutted that Barrack Obama met that criterion. Cohen's column today (30 Oct.) might be interpreted as agreeing with my rebuttal, but ignoring it. He notes a litany of failures, disappointments and inadequacies of President Obama and strangely declares him “not in the mold of RFK.” However, Cohen “will vote for Obama,” his rationale being to “prevent Republicans from sacking government,” not because he reflexively supports the ideological left, even in failure.

Recently, The Washington Post ran a list of Obama failures similar to Cohen's. Not at all surprisingly, they endorsed Obama with justification no more persuasive than Cohen's, and dishonesty equal to his.

Such intellectual dishonesty is now all pervasive with most of the print media pundits and virtually all of the broadcast media – those with the most ink and the loudest megaphones with which to influence voters. I wrote recently that the media are guilty of “violation of journalistic ethics.” Charles Krauthammer calls their bias “journalistic malpractice.” So it is. How did it get this way? Is it not apparent to them that, while their influence is waning, they still influence enough people to keep us on the path to perdition if the Obama policies are maintained. Is this what they want? Where will they be if Obama transforms America according to his model? Chavez, Putin and the Castros have also endorsed Obama. Think about it!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more